Bob's Mantra

What do you guys think about Bob Whitaker and his radio shows?

------------------------------------------
BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker
-------------------------------------------------


http://www.whitakeronline.org/
http://www.whitakeronline.org/townhall.htm

-------------------------------------------------

Discuss..

In my opinion, one of the true geniuses of our age.

He's got a right idea, only thing is that he's stupid enough to shout it in public.  This is why everyone thinks racists are stupid, because only the stupid ones espouse their beliefs publicly.

All the rest of us white people just keep quiet.  It's not worth spoiling any potential career you might someday have over.

>>1

Yeah, but you're a racist. (by definition anyone who indentifies by race is a racist) So...I mean...come on here. What Bob doesn't understand is that whites tried the "move the whites in Africa" thing back during colonization. Not only did it not work, but whites totally exploited the people there and left it worse than when they left. (Example: Iraq)

Actually, I could draw numerous parallels between Iraq and Africa and any other instance where paranoid white nationalists thought they were saving a region, when in actuality, they were distablizing it and reaping profits from that destablization.

Race is like a religion. And the people screaming for the benefit of their "race" are nothing more than zealots. The same type of zealots that bomb abortion clinics and world trade centers. 

Personally, I don't care about race. I don't care about preserving "the black race" and things in the world will get alot better when people are mixed with so many different races that it doesn't matter anymore.

>>2

My question is: Why does one even care about protecting their race?

Look at this logically for a second. At various times different races have controlled the world- and if you believe for one second there WASN'T a time when the world was ALL black- you don't understand the basics of history and human biology. 

When looking at human existance as a march towards progress- it seems logical to me that AT SOME POINT- whites aren't going to be in control of everything. My question is why are you trying so hard to keep everything white? I don't understand.

Are you under the impression that things are any better than they were when other races were in the spotlight? The only thing that's changed is the technology and due to the technological singularity progress in that area of humanity exists outside of the racial and economical caste systems.

The most favorable situation is going to be people mixed by race and language coupled with technologies and social systems that make it so race and language isn't a barrier when doing something IMPORTANT like say- developing a rocket that can approach light speed.

>>4 The only thing that's changed is the technology

Do you mean the technology that the White race created?

>>5

Here's the thing though- you didn't create it. Not "single-handedly" which is what white nationalists and supremacists seem to constantly imply. (sometimes not at all) I'm sure you'd like to believe that no one had thought of gravity or computers before whites started stealing land, technology, culture and religions from non-white civilizations.  But history paints a different picture for the rest of us who are not constricted by racial pride (or prejudices).

Many of mankind's biggest and most important leaps in technology or thought are products of synchronicity. At best whites can be attributed to developing a patent system and a social system which downplays if not completely disregards the notion that a non-white could have a role in the progress of mankind.

Don't misunderstand, I understand your need to have pride in your so-called "white heritage". But realistically speaking you have no more of a connection to that I do to slaves, spear-chuckers and shamans that make star maps out of sand, rocks and bone.

Either way, you're missing the point. I'm talking about mankind evolving from "compete" to "complete". And for me, if the creation of faster than light travel hinges on whether or not we keep "pure races" around- then I say bring on the mix-breeds. I'm trying to get to the proverbial finish line (the post-human stage) and it's becoming clear we're not going to get there trying to make sure our skin color wins out over all the others.

>>4
Never said I did care, just that what that guy is saying is true. 

>>4
I got no problems mixing with asians.  It's just mixing with blacks and bringing down the overall intelligence factor of the gene pool that I don't like. 

>>8
Fucking MORAN.  Have you not been reading the race and intelligence threads that show that intelligence INCREASES for mixbreeds? 

>>9
Called hybrid vigor BTW.  Do a search for it in the race thread.

>>10
Eh, true.  Did you know that 90% of african americans are mixbreeds with either native americans or crackers anyway?  It's true.  One of the great black activist reverends it turns out is very "white" genetically.

>>11
How the fuck would you know that?

>>12
It was part of some sort of racial or national solidarity thing, I don't know the specifics, but many black people who had been stripped of their "heritage" wanted to find out what tribes they had originated from in africa.  Anyway, it was an event publicized on TV and everything, and they just kept finding evidence of white haplotypes in their genetic makeup.

>>12
white man knows everything

Whites should have been wiped out a long time ago

White people don't have a right to exist. The whole world benefits from them being gone. I'll be glad when white people are wiped off the face of this planet for their crimes against humanity.

http://racetraitor.org/

There is nothing worthy in the history of European or American whites. You are complete and utter instruments of evil on this earth. You deserve everything you get. You don't have the right to exist culturally or genetically. You're just holding everybody else back. Good riddance.

Why fight truth? Why fight good?

"Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed." Noel Ignatiev, white Harvard professor and editor of Race Traitor magazine.

"The white race is the cancer of human history." "Philosopher" and liberal guru, Susan Sontag

"When we say 'white people,' we mean the people of greed who value things over people, who value money over people. We know exactly what their values are and where they lead. We have all paid a terrible price for those values." "Diversity consultant," Harris Sussman, in a front-page article in Managing Diversity: a magazine subscribed to by gov't agencies (which are funded by tax-payer dollars), and cited in the Washington Times, 13 February 1997, p. A-10.


"I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing,' and then slap him for my mental health." N. Y. City councilman Charles Barron on the subject of reparations for slavery. (Nat'l Review Online, 6 Jan. '03.)

"Knowing what I know about what my people did, I wouldn't be able to respect myself if I weren't doing everything I can to have ... white people face up to this crime we committed and to right this great wrong." Donna Lamb, member of Caucasians United for Reparations & Emancipation. (Washington Post, 16 Aug. '02.)

You know what, screw you. I'm joining National Vanguard.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/nv/index.html

I can't join the NV, but I'm a member of the BNP.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/

More Bob

http://www.whitakeronline.org/
-----------------------
Whitaker's World View September 20, 2003

=========================================
<Fun Quote>:

Report to the United Nations Human Relations Council:

There is a country that uses cartoons produced in Japan.  However, since they decided that all Orientals look alike in cartoons, they insist that only Caucasian cartoon characters be used. Most of their cartoon characters even have blue eyes.

I demand that that country be condemned for racism.

That country is Japan.

 

======================================
If Hitler Hated Jews, Then All Our National Spokesmen Hate Whites

 
A German Nazi in the 1930s could look you straight in the eye and tell you he didn't hate Jews. Many a Nazi could honestly say that some of his best friends had been Jews.

Nazis did not identify their emotion toward Jews as "hate." They were just acting for the common good.

You say this is crazy?

Then let us look at WHY you say this is crazy. You say Nazis hated Jews because Nazis said that no place on earth was a good place unless it was "Judenfrei" (free of Jews).

Today you are a racist unless you want EVERY white country to import Asians and Africans and mix with them. You are a racist unless you demand that ONLY White countries import other races and mix with them:

"Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians."

Unless you are a racist, you demand all that immigration and intermarriage because it will "solve the race problem." But this "race problem" will not be "solved" in Africa or Asia. The "race problem" will be solved when ALL white countries and ONLY white countries are brown.

If you're not a racist, you want a "white free" world.

That's not hate, that's Idealism.

The hippies' line was, "The white race is the cancer of history."

But absolutely nobody will call that hate. The hippies were Young Idealists.

Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev put it best:

"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists."

That's not hate, that is what we pay teachers to teach.

Every respectable conservative agrees with Ignatiev.

See 05/10/03: O'Reilly Agrees: the only Point of Integration is to get rid of Whites

Another reason you insist that Nazis hated Jews is because Nazis never attributed anything good to Jews, and they blamed all evil things on the Jews.

When America landed on the moon, the speech had to say that it was "a great step for Mankind." All the food, medical miracles, and everything else that white people produce is officially the product of "mankind." If you say that "whites" did anything good, you are a racist.

But the Nazis did give the Jews credit for doing things, bad things. And only a racist today does not give whites credit for doing every bad thing that ever happened. Whites had slavery. Whites invaded other continents. You know the drill.

If you don't know the drill, then you are a racist.

In Nazi Germany, more Jews were turned in by other Jews than by any other group of people. In the world today, whites are required to lead the charge against whites.

We're all Nazis now. The only thing that has changed is who the Jew is.

"Saying what respectable conservatives won't."

That's his web site's slogan.

It really doesn't matter what Bob says, as long as there are privelages to being "white" and having "white" skin, he has nothing to stand on. The fact is, eventually, sooner or later "whites" are going to be phased out and with it, the notion of race giving some people social advantages over others.

That shit needs to go and if you're arguing for the status quo, you are arguing for these principals which we know are wrong because Bob implies the lack of ethics with the situation growing towards being reversed.

Seems to me the argument is: "We've already won history, so just roll over and take it."

LOL, I'm sorry but that's just not going to happen.

What exact priveleges do I have for having white skin?

Let's see:

There is a higher chance that I will be attacked by a 'minority.'
I'm 'discriminated' against in everything from jobs to college acceptance. These acts of prejudice against white people are legalized.
The list goes on and on.


Oh, I forgot 'invisible' white privelege. Yes yes, somewhere I have an imaginary brick of gold hidden somewhere that says 'white privelege.' Somehow, I seem to only meet up with prejudice against whites but at some point I'm going to be able to cash in...

If whites should be punished for the acts of a few pirates and tyrants 150+ years ago, then all negros should be punished for their higher crime rates.

>>23
LOL but you forget that it was the acts of the white tyrants that led to higher black crime rates.  And when you consider that most of that crime is black on black, the tyrannical legacy of the racist white people is still going on to this day.

In other words, it's your fault my neighbor broke into my house and stole my TV.  A fact's a fact.

>>24
It was the black people's fault that europe became an imperial power in the first place...  They drove them out of africa and made them want to get back!

>>22
You don't understand though...  The entire system is set up for whites!  And  the only way to get anywhere in the WHITE world is to become a race traitor, and do whatever whitey says to do.  My boss at McDonalds is always telling me to mop the floors, but I'm not doing shit for his white ass.  THIS IS NOT A PLANTATION ANYMORE GOD DAMN IT!

>>26
So this illusory "White privilidge" is actually just the white's ability to conform where it will serve his best interests, rather than stupidly holding onto some form of pointless rebellion?

>>27
Rebellion is all we have as a race.  If we let whitey take that from us, we'll have NOTHING.  No IDENTITY, no PEOPLE, no PRIDE.  We need to stick together as a group, and fight tooth and nail against anyone or anything that threatens that.

>>28
You don't have to give up your racial identity to become successful in "Whitey's world".  You ever looked at the jews?  Yeah, they're damn fucking off the wall successful, and yet their's is one of the most powerfully cohesive ethnicities on the planet.  They have their own culture, values, god damn, even their own religion.  Yet they are successful.  Why? 

Because they don't start in with this pointless and stupid "I ain't doin' what whitey tells me" bullshit.

>>29
Jews have their own power strucutre in this country, held together by generations of business interests and insider, under the table deals only available to other jews.  The white people also don't seem to have as much of a problem with them.

>>30
Are you kidding me?  The Jews have got to be one of the most maligned groups in racist literature!  For god's sake, millions of jews died at the hands of "whitey" back in the 1940's, or are you one of these nuts who says the holocaust didn't happen?

I see what you're doing here, and I don't have to sit here on this "so-called" site 4chan and take it.  You're trying to make it seem like black people are not the only people who ever went through hardship.  Well, that's BULLSHIT.  Black people have endured torment and marginalization the likes of which the world has never seen before or since, and which is STILL GOING ON TO THIS DAY.  Just fuck you, I'm trying to fight ignorance, and yet you people still just WILL NOT LEARN. 

Have a nice day, you fucking racist slob.

>>24
>>25
>>26
>>27
>>28
>>29
>>30
>>31
>>32
Same person

>>33
LOL DUH!  I still made my point though.

>>32

Ok, black people are mistreating whites because they think white people are mistreating black people, when white people act extra-special nice to black people because they are terrified to be called racist or to be attacked by black people. Ironically, being black means having the red-carpet rolled out for you. White people will tip-toe around minorities because they are TERRIFIED.

That's why black/Asians/Jews people aren't criticized EVER in public. Why? Because you'll be called a racist, lose your job, and possibly be attacked by black people.

If you criticize white people, they may disagree with you, but they'll shrug at you. You won't lose your job. You won't be attacked. You won't be called a racist. White people won't even be particularly threatening since they are polite and law-abiding.

Gee... Who's oppressed again?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3693

>>35

Still blacks/asians/jews, the reason is the privalages that come with being white. Eliminate that for any and all skin colors and you eliminate the problem. Eliminate race and you eliminate any problem's stemming from race.

White people don't exist, anyway. This bears repeating because there was a time when people referred to each other by nationality. Where the English hated the Irish and the Irish hated the Scottish.

>>37
WHAT PRIVILIDGES?

Well for one: White people won't even be particularly threatening since they are polite and law-abiding.

>>37

Look, white privilege doesn't exist anymore in white countries. Legally, non-white privilege exists. Socially, non-white privilege exists. No doubt, I see white people head-over-heels trying to prove that they are not racist every day. I love/loathe this one picture that has a whole bunch of people around a van with 'Kill Whitey' on the front, and guess what, every person in the picture is white. My estimation is that indeed whitey will by very good at killing whitey.

In China, there is Chinese privelege, duh. In Japan, there is Japanese privelege, duh. In Mexico, there is Mexican privilege, duh. In Korea, there is Korean privelege. In India, there is Indian privelege, duh. In Israel, there is Jewish privelege, duh. The Israelites are a bunch of bastards to the Palestinians, but no body publicly faults them for being a bunch of total bastards, because Jewish privilege is very strong in white countries. Very strong indeed.

In the US and Europe, there is black privilege, Jewish privilege, Asian privilege... You You would expect that white majority countries, being white coutries, would have white privelege (and that would be ok since they are white countries, or at least they used to be,) but instead your employer gets a tax-free employee if they are ANYTHING but white. Colleges don't get paid state money unless they have a quota of ANYBODY but whites. Many colleges actually have a much higher population, compared to the percentage of the population in the country, in college than whites do. These more favored non-white populations still complain about colleges not having enough 'diversity.' In fact, they will NEVER be satisfied until white people are totally discriminated against. Why? Simple greed. The only people that get screwed over in the end with these policies and behaviors are the polite white people that would just like everybody to be friends and everything to be 'fair,' when non-whites are fighting for selfish material gain in a white society. They gain and their children gain from these policies, and white people lose. It's not fair to white people, but it's not about being fair to white people. It's about gain for non-whites.

I don't think white people mind anybody else being in their countries (no matter how much people call us stupid and lazy, we tend to be fairly openminded and fair,) but white people start getting annoyed when they are discriminated against in their own homelands.

Partially, this has to do with our own nature, as Western culture, unlike ancestor worshipping cultures or tribal religion culture, is not very ethnocentric.

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/km-unique.html

White people make up a small portion of the world population. White privelege goes away in their homelands. Suddenly, the white population starts shrinking even more, and white people eventually lose power in their very own countries (a minority by 2050) and demographics point to their very extinction by possibly 2200. The demographics also prove that other races will survive for atleast thousands of years, perhaps indefinately.

The conclusion? Privilege of a people, within their very own borders, won by war and law, is the protective barrier that allow a people to survive. White privilege goes away everywhere, and white people start dying off. Not rocket science.

>>40
Given, but "white power" is just too close to nazism.  I'm not one of those saying the holocaust didn't happen, (I think it probably did) but really, cultural history has just had that odd effect of neutralizing white people. 

I think that neo-nazi groups will rise up though, and gain substantial power in germany and areas like that, throw out the foreigners, reinstate logical home-turf privilege (like the japanese and chinese have... no one critisizes them for not being multicultural enough) and white people will at least survive.  (I'm not a person who thinks that race is particularly important...  I just hate to see a branch of possibility snuffed out)

About whites in the united states?  Barring a HUGE overturn of the status quo, we'll be, not completely extinct as a RACE now, but well on our way out, with no cultural barriers etc... that say we should preserve our own makeup.

I'm not a person who thinks that race is so important, please understand.  As a white guy, I've thought about marrying a japanese girl (haha weeaboo!).  I'd just not like to see a race go away simply because everyone thinks they were so evil.  (especially one that produces a very large proportion of our scientists and other mind-type job people...  Intelligence doesn't determine your value as a person, don't get me started on that, but it would be good to have a few more smart people around.)

>>41

I think 41 shows the idea that is really inherent in the native Western culture before multiculturalism. White people were never really that ethnocentric, but that's a far cry from the extermination of your entire race. Also, white people are more concerned with qualities like reason, intelligence, wisdom, and strength than with pure ethnocentrism. But, as I said before, this is a far cry from wanting your entire race and heritage to be snuffed out.

>>42
Yeah, all those pantwaist libs in the US apparently think all history begins and ends with the British Empire, completely forgetting the UK are mutts, and so are 'pure' Germans, having bred with their trading partners for centuries. Any truly divisive lines between countries in those days were drawn along religious reasons.

>>43


Well, white countries (although I would say more cultural than religious,) non-white countries really are racially separate from white countries, but white countries have been sharing genes and cultures for a millenia. Also, if you consider that the white world population is relatively small, the British or the Irish population is infintesimal. However, ironically, Germans and Brits share much of the same gene patterns, like in personality/intelligence/facial characteristics/nose shape/melanin concentration/cranium size/diverse hair shades (black to blonde to red), and similar foundational cultural values that they simply don't share with non-white countries. That's why white->white assimlation is natural and easy while non-white->white assimilation is not. Non-whites don't share any of the genes, culture, or heritage that whites do with each other.

>>44 That probably also has something to do with the fact
that Germany and Britan were populated by the same people for the most part. America isn't Europe, but America/US was populated by Europeans. They are practically the same people. Genetically, they ARE the same.

whats so graet about white people? who care?

>>46
physics
chemistry
architechture
engineering
cosmology

list goes on

>>47 age for truth. Other cultures dabbled in all of those; none of them took them as far as we have (for better or for worse).

>>46
It's a White thing.  You wouldn't understand.

>>46
The White Devil's Tricknology!

Healthy living: By Yacub and the grafted white snake devils!

(This, of course, is horrible horrible sarcasm.)

Mmm. Ice cream, tastes like tricknology!

>>50

And it tastes good!

>>38

See: >>37

>>40

Good. White people should start dying off because there's no such thing as a "white race". "White" greatly overgeneralizes groups of people who before the 1800's had entirely different cultures and ways of life- a majority of which- were opposed to each other.

Also, I think it's all cool you're trying to "survive" and all that- but your survival constitutes ignorant characterization of other peoples and is built fundamentally that the white race should be preserved because it is somehow superior to others. That's racism by objective, non-moral definition. That shouldn't be allowable for any race of people- white- black- whatever.

You're operating under the ignorant assumption that "whites" want everything to be "fair". Well, there's a little bits of history like African Colonization and the Holocaust that "fair" is another word for "white dominated".

With ideas of "racial IQ" floating around in the white nationalist party- it's clear that your camp doesn't know the fucking meaning of fair and you're not going to fool everyone into believing you.

>>52
Absurd.

Hong Kong (PRC) 107 Russia 96 Fiji 84
South Korea 106 Slovakia 96 Iran 84
Japan 105 Uruguay 96 Marshall Islands 84
Taiwan (ROC) 104 Portugal 95 Puerto Rico (US) 84
Singapore 103 Slovenia 95 Egypt 83
Austria 102 Israel 94 India 81
Germany 102 Romania 94 Ecuador 80
Italy 102 Bulgaria 93 Guatemala 79
Netherlands 102 Ireland 93 Barbados 78
Sweden 101 Greece 92 Nepal 78
Switzerland 101 Malaysia 92 Qatar 78
Belgium 100 Thailand 91 Zambia 77
China (PRC) 100 Croatia 90 Congo-Brazzaville 73
New Zealand 100 Peru 90 Uganda 73
United Kingdom 100 Turkey 90 Jamaica 72
Hungary 99 Indonesia 89 Kenya 72
Poland 99 Suriname 89 South Africa 72
Australia 98 Colombia 89 Sudan 72
Denmark 98 Brazil 87 Tanzania 72
France 98 Iraq 87 Ghana 71
Norway 98 Mexico 87 Nigeria 67
United States 98 Samoa 87 Guinea 66
Canada 97 Tonga 87 Zimbabwe 66
Czech Republic 97 Lebanon 86 Congo-Kinshasa 65
Finland 97 Philippines 86 Sierra Leone 64
Spain 97 Cuba 85 Ethiopia 63
Argentina 96 Morocco 85 Equatorial Guinea 59

http://images.google.com/images?q=lithuanian&hl=en
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=LAotian
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=ugandan

>>53


...

>>52

>>54
Yeah so? Black people kill, murder and enslave aswell. What matters is the race that can develop a society capable of putting an end to these crimes. The only reason whites committed barbarity on such a large scale is because they had the technology to. Just like the Mongols had the ability to kill million of people and Idi Amin had the ability to torture and execute anyone who disagreed with him. If white society was that evil, why are you no longer a slave? Having black labourers pick all the cotton was beneficial to white people, so why did they free the slaves? Why didn't the American military just shoot the civil rights protestors as the soviets or nazis would have done? Why did american servicemen risk their lives on normandy to get rid of the nazis? Why did whites throw the US into a bloody costly horrific civil war in order to end slavery?

All you are doing is looking at the facts that make whites look bad and make non-whites look good. If you had all the facts you would come to the same conclusion as me.

>>55

You're an idiot. I think the NAACP is very racist and I find any institution based on race to be racist and morally wrong. Wrong is wrong. Claiming that I care about the race of the one committing immoral acts is a fucking straw man.

But onto your questions.

Why am I no longer a slave?

Because of white christians who after years of exploiting Africans- had a moral crisis- taking upon themselves the "white man's burden". A better question: Why didn't Blacks gain civil rights until fucking 1964!?!?!

Why didn't they shoot the protestors?

They did alot of shit to the protestors OTHER than shoot them. And it wasn't always done by the American military. My argument isn't against the American military, in the first place. It is based on whites as YOU percieve them to be a race. And whites did attack black people, shoot them, lynched them and burn litle girls in churches. Also: Am I supposed to fucking give them "morality points" for doing not doing something that is ethically wrong in the FIRST PLACE? Your ideal of mercy is far too convienent for my tastes.

Why did American servicemen risk them lives?

Because Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. WW2 also helped the economy after the depression. White owned American coroporations actually still did business with the Nazis all the way up till D-Day. And once again "American military" isn't the white race. Blacks fought in world war 2 as well and still returned to America with no rights.

Why did white throw the US in to civil war?

Simple. To save the union. Again: Keep in mind that blacks fought in the civil war as well. Both sides. Why did it take so long for them to get their rights afterwards? Why did it take so long for whites to roll back colonization?

>>56
because blacks were considered a races of sub-human slaves. you have to realize how radical the idea of giving rights to people who were considered slaves of half-human.

>>57

This excuses nothing and refutes nothing in my post. The question wasn't how radical it was, it's how moral it is to free people as slaves and treat them as sub-humans when they aren't.

There were white slaves and yet they were treated as human beings. The question is why- obviously one of the answers is simpleminded ignorance and racism...the other has more to do with economics (see: Mexican immigrant labor). It is around this time that references to seperate races of light-toned people ceased as well. It was a mad dash to assilimate scots, irish, dutch all the rest into one white.

Regardless, this treatment is hardly fair, morally right or "good" and that was the point I was making.

You just lost this debate.

Anything else?

>>56
>>57
>>58
If the reasonning behind a crime is not racist why is that crime justified? You are all competely insane, all slavery is evil. I thought you were vehement anti-racists with a conscience not psychotic maniacs.

My point is not when blacks got civil rights, but the fact that civil rights were allowed and the sacrifices made for it to actually happen. The first time in human history that a multi-ethnic society had equal voting and working rights in a country and you have some sort of vehement hate for the crimes committed by one race that your race is also easily capable of. It doesn't take much to flick through history to see the awful despotism and tyranny human history is wracked with, the fact that some form of democracy occured at all is a miracle, let alone the end of slavery and civil rights. Calling the white race evil for not giving you civil rights earlier is like calling einstein stupid for not developping the theory of relativity earlier.

You mention how most americans whites are scots, poles, germans etc etc.. If you have to hate someone because their ancestors committed a crime, why do you hate all whites and think they should atone for the sins of another group of whites? What I am seeing here is classic skapegoating and you are all vicious crazy paranoid fucktards.

Well I'm sorry my race has been succesful and ended slavery and oppression so you are allowed to say these things without getting beaten and sent back to the fields, however I will not apologise for crimes I have not committed. I don't feel guilty for being white at all, I'm not proud either. I am an individualist meritocratic eugenicist, I choose to employ the qualified black guy over the slightly less qualified white guy, and the only reason I am opposing you in this debate is because I value the truth and the truth is there is no reason to hate the white race or call them evil.

Take the log out of your own eye before you criticise the speck in someone elses.

>>58
They were considered subhuman for a reason.

Chinese laborers brought to the US in the late 18th Century to work on railroads were treated far worse than slaves.  Coolies were fungible goods, to be worked until they died and then replaced, whereas slaves were investments.  Yet no Chinatown slum of 100 years ago was ever anywhere near as dangerous as Harlem even then.  Why do you suppose that is?

East Asians living in the US are in the aggregate better off than most whites today.  Why do you suppose that is?

Vietnamese "Boat People" who got off the boats literally penniless and without one word of English had children who almost universally graduated college and are now doctors and engineers and stockbrokers and scientists, while Negroes sat around and watched it happen with their fingers in their asses, and then went back to complaining about how badly the White folk paying the taxes to pay for their welfare checks were oppressing them, and still are today.  Why do you suppose that is?

Negroes claim that the first word of English learned by Koreans fresh off the boat is "nigger."  Are these Koreans attending Klan rallies?  (would that make them the KKKK?)  Or are they seeing TNB every day in their stores, and seeing with their own eyes?

Yes, yes, I know.  "dat beez RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACISMS!"

And that's all the answer you will ever be able to give for any of these questions.

>>59

You're insane. I haven't accused you committing any crime. If I have, then by all means: Quote me. Your question was about the white people back then and my response concerns them alone.

Calling the white race evil for not giving you civil rights earlier is like calling einstein stupid for not developping the theory of relativity earlier.

Fallacy. I'm not calling the entire white race evil. Just the whites of that era. And at that, a select number. I'm fairly certain most were socially conditioned into considering blacks a certain way.

So...Why is this so hard to understand? Are you so committed to your race that you can't distinguish individual generations (therefore individual views on equality and race) of people?

Slavery is evil no matter who commits the crime and no matter what they did to rectify that crime afterwards. It's a crime that never should have never been committed.

And to be clear here, we are not talking about my civil rights. I don't share the sense of having won anything like my mother or father and their mothers and fathers. As far as I'm concerned if I was alive during slavery- I'd be dead. I'm smart enough to have a sense of my natural rights as a human being. And they culled the smart ones.

Regardless the question is still posed: Am I supposed to thank whites of that era for doing something they should've done in the first place? Am I supposed to be grateful? Well, I'm sorry, I'm not. I don't spend much time thinking about white people or that era, at all, unless a subject like this comes up. 

But ~Let's review the argument I'm making~

There were white slaves and yet they were treated as human beings. The question is why- obviously one of the answers is simpleminded ignorance and racism...the other has more to do with economics (see: Mexican immigrant labor). It is around this time that references to seperate races of light-toned people ceased as well. It was a mad dash to assilimate scots, irish, dutch all the rest into one white race.

Regardless, (of the reasons) this treatment is hardly fair, morally right or "good" and that was the point I was making.

Now let's superimpose this onto what I said in >>52/>>54:

You're operating under the ignorant assumption that "whites" want everything to be "fair". Well, there's a little bits of history like African Colonization and the Holocaust that say "fair" is another word for "white dominated".

And your base-response to that:

All you are doing is looking at the facts that make whites look bad and make non-whites look good. If you had all the facts you would come to the same conclusion as me.

You seem to think when it comes to slavery the debate is about slavery itself. It's not. It's about the treatment of blacks. You said whites were fair- I merely pointed out that there were not. How were Jim Crow laws fair? Isn't what I said about saving the union exemplified by the fact that after the civil the government made no effort to assimilate blacks and bestow upon them rights that were natural first and civil second?

Finally, explain to me how precisely all of this somehow translates out to your guilt (or lack there of)?

Why are you upset that history happened?

>>60

They were considered sub-human for a reason.

You know what, man? Say no more. I get it: [u]You hate blacks. You're going to accuse me of saying "dat beez racisms" no matter what. Even when I direct respond to your questions. I understand you're not here for debate and I'm done responding to someone who doesn't even consider me a human being.

I think >>59 and >>61 are arguing past each other. They're both right.

The problem is that a lot of people on both sides of the debate don't think like this. :'(

>>62

i dont understand how >>59 can act like he has an argument. he says whites are fair- history shows they're not. then he says it is racist and wrong (against whites) for anti-chan to point that out? and then he goes off on how he shouldn't feel guilty and all this other bollocks.

he must've forgotten how whites generally resisted giving blacks rights. it wasn't something white just gave to blacks. it was something blacks fought for. his argument is rubbish and dangerously close to bigotry for my tastes. he undoing alot of argument by himself

I think you're reading too much into it, >>63.

Were the whites wrong to do what they did? You bet. Would any other race have done the exact same thing in the same situation? Of course. Them evil whiteys are just another powerful civilization in history, repeating the very same things powerful civilization prior to them did.

Whites aren't evil incarnate; they're just like everyone else. Get up and look in the mirror: no matter what colour you are, deep down you're a monster. Just like everyone else. In short, whites aren't the problem. We are.

Hopefully humanity eventually outgrows this, but I don't hold much hope. Aggression, groupthink, in-group bias, selfishness, and opportunism are too deeply ingrained in our instincts. We've managed to survive and thrive because of what we are, but it'll also be our undoing once our newfangled modern toys start being used.

Don't believe me? Just look at this idiotic black/white debate. In-group galore. Your way of thinking, us versus them, is what caused this mess in the first place.

>>64

All of what you said is pretty much a give in. But that doesn't apply here. He uttered the ignorant characterization that "whites are fair". History proves otherwise. So I'm suffering from think-group syndrome because history happened? Are we supposed to, pardon the pun, whitewash all of history and pretend it didn't happen when someone makes an implictly racist and supremist statement like the one >>55 made?

There's a conflict with his speak.

One the one hand, he doesn't want anything to do with slavery or jim crow or colonization. He says that he shouldn't feel guilty.

Ok, fine.

But then he goes on to include himself with the whites of that era by saying: "I'm sorry my race was successful."

He doesn't seem to understand that "his race" has been successful because of slavery, colonization (of not only Africa), and policies set in place to deny others of their rights- insuring that success he holds so dear.

If I'm wrong here, tell me where I'm wrong. Because I've never painted blacks are doing everything good. I'm sure we've done our fair share of fucked up shit throughout history. The difference is- I don't feel a connection with blacks of the present or past because fundamentally- I don't believe in race.

>> He doesn't seem to understand that "his race" has been successful because of slavery, colonization (of not only Africa), and policies set in place to deny others of their rights- insuring that success he holds so dear.

Actually the white race was successful because of their ability to exploit the natural resources at hand.  If it included slaves, well, then, yeah, you could say that.  But the white race would have been this successful with or without slaves.

>>66
We just would have been like the asians, sticking to our own plot of ground, building a civilization, and the rest of the world be damned.

>>  In-group galore. Your way of thinking, us versus them, is what caused this mess in the first place.

Actually, I'm one of the major parties in that debate...  There don't seem to be any in-groups in there.  Just one side says that genes don't matter, and the other side says that they do.  For example, anti-chan (I'm just assuming that's who it is) says he doesn't believe in race because of genetic similarities, while I say that race is just a human measure of an observable phenomenon.  Same reason for believing two totally different things.

My point is that I'm not arguing from the point of view of a white guy, just someone who thinks that genes are important and should be looked at.  And he says they shouldn't.  Our races seem rather incidental, even though they do color (LOL PUN) our positions. 

(I prove my unbiased nature by pointing out studies of asians and jews etc... being superior to my own race.  Doesn't mean that us white people should be eliminated so that ashkenazi jews and japanese can take over.  same for blacks.  I just believe that genetic factors for intelligence is not something that should be out of hand ignored because it's an... icky subject)

That being said, White peopel are actually one of the most ethnically weak groups of people on the planet.  Family ties are weak, extended family is almost not important at all.  European society seems to have always been very multicultural, judging people on their individual traits rather than on what any central authority would have said.  This didn't always apply to everyone they conquered; I mean, they were just another resource to the people of those times.  But really though, compared to Chinese society or old indian society...  Their xenophobia not only kept them in their own lands, and from conquering others, but kept them tight as an integral ethnic group.  Our largest controlling authority in history, the catholic church, was very powerful, but citizens were willing to go against it, and we were willing to go out to sea, abadoning our old "ethnicity" to become "American".  In 2500 years you haven't seen anything like that in china or japan.

In short; we're a nomadic people.  That's why we were so meteorically successful.

>>66

But the white race would have been this successful with or without slaves.

According to who? You? Do you have proof? No? I thought not. The logistical growth of the "white empire" would have been impossible without colonization and without slavery.

You're under the impression that slavery came about because of a inherant need to "rightfully" subjegate a people. It didn't. It came about cheifly because of the need for cheap (see: free) labor. Remember: North Americans blacks were indentured servants first, slaves afterwards. And whites were slaves too.

It's very convenient for you, in a losing argument, to reclassify african slavery as "exploiting natural resources". It's your way of reframing the debate so that you don't look like a stinking heap of insecure fail.

But in your narrow scope you forgot to address the element of unethical and immoral behaviors in being the exploiter. You also pathetically dodged the all encompassing points that were being made:

I.E

There's a conflict with his speak.

One the one hand, he doesn't want anything to do with slavery or jim crow or colonization. He says that he shouldn't feel guilty. [For the actions of other men]

This indicates that he realizes the circumstances of colonization and slavery were morally wrong and he doesn't wish to be lumped in with the whites of that era.

Ok, fine.

But then he goes on to include himself with the whites of that era by saying: "I'm sorry my race was successful."

Here, he contricts himself and lumps himself in with the whites of that era. So again I ask: Have I accused him of anything? No, I haven't. It simply appears that it is his undying commitment to the "white race" that has him racked with guilt.

Regardless, the one thing we have agreed on is that slavery and jim crow laws were immoral, unethical and not "fair". He stated that white "fair". He was wrong.

Now unless you have something new to say, I'm afriad you've lost. What is it about you and constantly losing to me in debates?

Must be your low IQ.

while I say that race is just a human measure of an observable phenomenon.

And this, for me, is the fatal flaw in the concept of race. It's only a phenomenon if put all your eggs in that basket so to speak. Different features and the like are inherant in nature. (All cows don't look the same.)

The only reason it's an "observable phenomenon" is because different cultures and ways of life correspond to the different features. Otherwise- race has no fundamentally biological expression.

>>69
Sub-Saharan Africans practiced slavery on a far larger scale than any whites, ever, anywhere did.  Sub-Saharan Africans still practice slavery today.

By your argument, they ought to be the ones running things.

>>70 race has no fundamentally biological expression

o rly?

GENETIC DISTANCE FROM CHIMPANZEES
HOW CLOSELY RELATED ARE THE VARIOUS RACES?
by Michael Rienzi, Biologist.


Genetic studies can provide much knowledge, and some of the newer
technologies are quite powerful and useful. However, some of the older and
more basic studies are quite interesting as well, and some shed important
light on racial and species differences. I'd like to talk about two here.


The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56,
pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares
the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North
Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans,
more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian
sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data
were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with
modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.


Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both
methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the
Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value
(second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and
show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest
from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the
Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497)
were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping).
Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the
closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the
South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians
(0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as
well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two
methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by
far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method,
these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged
from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the
other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on
these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps.
The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on
these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":


    "...the SO [Sokoto Nigerian - my note] population is the furthest from
all the other human populations."


Indeed, these genetic data are consistent with the work of J. Irish,
reviewed here, demonstrating that sub-Saharan Africans are dentally more
similar to extinct and extant apes, and to extinct hominids and
australopithecines, than are any other human population. The genetic data
and the dental phenotypic data match perfectly.


Some may find it unfortunate that all these data seem to correlate with
certain racial stereotypes. However, we must view facts - however harsh -
with honesty. And if that includes recognition that certain groups may be
slightly more distant from chimps than are Whites, so be it. Of course,
White groups have "on their side" the verdict of history as to their
accomplishments compared to other groups; the European extended phenotype
is second to none. However, we can imagine that other less accomplished
groups may find these data very unsettling. That is unfortunate;
nonetheless, it does not change the facts.

>>70
I would actually say I agree with that. 

But to discount what we can learn from genetic study makes no sense.

I suspect that the whites would have been successful regardless of slavery or not (the cultural offshoots of the Renaissance ensured that), but they wouldn't have been as successful.
Cheap labour is a fantastic advantage, which is why businesses still use it today.

>>72

lol @ micheal reinzi

gb2/stromfront.org

>>72


>>71


PROOOOOF PLEASE. (And shit you've read on stormfront, doesn't fucking count)

No proof, no merit, so noted. :D

Also, saying that "by my argument sub-saharans should be running things" is a purposeful twisting of my argument and my words. Wait, what am I doing? I shouldn't even be responding to you. This is my last one, I promise. :)

>>72

If you were smart you'd understand that this doesn't prove me wrong. I'll just wait for you read over this again.

Also, it should be noted that Michael Rienzi is connected to white nationalism. I don't trust him in the same way you wouldn't trust some black "afrocentric" professor.

>>76
Aw, were there too many big words?  Here's the single most significant line:

Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

That is a reference to a paper printed in a peer-reviewed, referreed scholarly journal.

I post objective scientific truth, you chimp out and shriek "go back to Stormfront, dat beez RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACISM!"

Incoherent shrieks of outrage do not constitute refutation.  Therefore your concession of each point is noted.

Michael Rienzi is a biologist--a scientist who deals in objective empirical truth.

A million "Black Studies" professors could never refute a single word he's ever written if you gave them fifty years to work, because all they have is agitprop--simpleminded lies calculated to flatter IQ-70 slumdwellers and thereby sell books.

"Chilluns, did y'all know dat de Ancient Greeks wuz black?  An' Beethoven an' Alfred Einstein too?  It's dat ole debbil Whitey, hidin' de TROOF agin!  Dey waz once African cibblizations dat had flyin' saucers an' shit, but y'all won't nebba fine dem in no Whitey books!  It beez a con-spee-ro-see!  An' de Jews beez in on it too!  Don't y'all hates dem Jews?  I sho nuff hates me some Jews!"

But wave your hands and scream "racism" some more, as if that affected me.  It's amusing.

>>77
>>78

You seem to think my job was to refute the study. I'm afriad you're mistaken; read what I wrote: "If you were smart you'd understand that this doesn't prove me wrong. I'll just wait for you read over this again."

I guess you're not smart.

You know: I could go into how Macroevolution is a sham to prop up the atheist scientific community. (Any sociologist or antropologist will highlight how trival Rienzi's study is.)

I could argue how regardless "black genes" don't exist in isolation and can only be expressed genetically sampled from a continuum.

I could highlight the fact that all men began as apes. (Shave a gorilla and see what color the skin is).

I could go the emotional route; talk about how "Affection Hunger" is drilled into human DNA as to over power "selfish-genes" and therefore notions of superiority. And how it is that ideal of self-sacrifice and the quest for affection that most makes us human.

But the thing is: I really don't care anymore, dude. You seem to think that study means something and I won't take that away from you, but this is what South Amerindians looks like:

www.minelinks.com/worker/jungle_people44.jpg

The humans who are the fatherest from apes are still savages, so what is your point? Do you think truth will ever make your hatred acceptable?

You don't even consider me human. You hate me because you think I'm somehow affliated with a race and by asscioation I am out to preserve the dignity of my "race".

Hahaha.

I'm sorry, but that's called projection.

There's no such thing as objective truth with you, because you and I are having two totally different arguements. Don't fool yourself, buddy. You aren't >>59. You continue to argue right past me and insist that I'm furthering some liberal negroid agenda despite the fact that you have no information or quotations to back up that claim. The only thing you know about me is that I'm black and that's "guud ennuf fer you, hyuk".

There can be no objectivity when we don't even agree that we're two human adults debating ideas.

I guess that's the reason I'm taking a step back from this- because the discourse- particularly with you- is steeped in fear, hate and negativity. And call me a pussy, but I just can't hang with that right now.

In your small mind- this translates out to me calling you "racist". But the truth is I don't even see you as white, you just seem like some really insecure guy who doesn't know who he is and lets himself be defined by his race. You're like alot of black people I know who blame whites for everything.

So what am I supposed to do to appease you? Die? Seek to kill, destroy or isolate you, because you seek to kill, destroy and isolate me?

Do you really want a debate or do you want a safe haven from morality; a place where you're free to call black people niggers and chimps without dealing with the affects of your actions?

>>79 You seem to think my job was to refute the study.

If you're claiming it's false, it certainly is.  And you have failed utterly to do so.  Do you concede the point, then?

>> I could go into how Macroevolution is a sham to prop up the atheist scientific community.

You could try, with about as little success as you're having debating any other scientific point.

Let's see, on our side we have Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, and every biologist, zoologist, and geneticist of the past hundred years and then some.  On your side, there's you, Louis Farrakhan, Pat Robertson, Osama bin Laden, the Reverend Ike, and the crazy old guy with the mimeograph machine in his basement handing out blurry fliers in the mall parking lot about "EVIL-ution conspiracies to deny the truth of Jesus!  Pray the Rosary daily!"

This should be fun and educational--fun for me, educational for you.  Bring it.

>> you have no information or quotations to back up that claim

Nothing except objective scientific truth, while you have ludicrous agitprop that wouldn't fool a nine-year-old and theatrical outrage.

>> I could argue how regardless "black genes" don't exist in isolation and can only be expressed genetically sampled from a continuum.

Is that a fact?

From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

Addendum I

The following is a list of the [human] chromosome 13q alleles which are found in both Nigerians and chimps and NOT found in any of the other population groups studied:

FLT1 - 156 and 176
D13S118 - 184
D13S121 - 160 and 180
D13S193 - 127 and 137
D13S124 - 179

That's eight genes found only in Negroes and chimps, from chromosome 13q alone.

You are aware that the FBI has for ten years now used DNA profiling to determine the race of a suspect when no eyewitness can provide a physical description, aren't you?

The rest of your post consists of whining and a clumsy attempt to psychoanalyze me, which I find most droll.

Do you have anything else to add, boy?

Wow, no wonder you ducked out of the race thread Anti-chan. 

I'll probably post myself once I've read through it.

>> If you're claiming it's false, it certainly is.  And you have failed utterly to do so.  Do you concede the point, then?

I never claimed it was false. Maybe you can quote me? Otherwise, you have no argument.

Nothing except objective scientific truth, while you have ludicrous agitprop that wouldn't fool a nine-year-old and theatrical outrage.

Maybe you can explain how your version of "objective scientific truth" means that I've been shouting "racism!" this whole time? Outside of the things in history that actually happened, I've said nothing to that end. I see you've failed to quote me.

No proof, no merit, so noted. :D

From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

Again: What is your point?

Read and Respond: You seem to think that study means something and I won't take that away from you, but this is what South Amerindians looks like:

www.minelinks.com/worker/jungle_people44.jpg

The humans who are the fatherest from apes are still savages, so what is your point? Do you think truth will ever make your hatred acceptable?

LOL! And that's funny "psychoanalyze". You don't even know what that word means. It's a word you thought you saw on the back of a cereal box.

Do you or do you not fear "blacks" and what they can do to your "white soceity"? And because of unreasonable fear we're led to believe that you love them and want do see them propser? Haha, OOOooookay. >.>

>>81

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that- but if you wish to further debate this- I'm more than eager to discuss issues of race with reasonable people such as yourself. Michael Reinzi's study included.

But I am no longer entertaining the thought of debating with "A. Wyatt Man". Your end result is eugenics and perhaps I can convince you that there are environmental solutions that can increase ones IQ if a purely genetic gap exists.

But his end result boils down to applying genocide or forced seperatism. And even though I don't really see myself as a part of "the black race"- I'm assuming that I'd be included. If that time ever comes (see: never) the "objective scientic truth" isn't going to stop me from defending myself via a bullet in his head.


>>80

Also, if you took what I said to mean something about religion- then you're mistaken. My argument falls along the lines of "affect hunger". Maybe you should look the term up?

The point is very concise: Because of Moral Enlightenment and the advent of modern civilization and modern thinking- survival is no longer a valid reason for immoral behaviors such as genocide or a forced seperation of races. 

I'd like a link to the "From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995." link. And not the Rienzi one referencing it. The orginal.

>>84

and proof it's peer reviewed

Your end result is eugenics

That's a sad way to try and escape what he said. He presents research and you weasel your way out by claiming that it could be used for eugenics? Methinks you're simply getting the bad end of the debate, and want out.

Guys, we'd better stop making forks right now, because I might hurt someone with it! Pillows too, we can suffocate people with pillows! And while we're at it, let's stop this whole science thing, because it's putting a few priests and monarchs out of a job!

Science is neutral, you nutter. We now know some diseases are hereditary, and how, so where are the death-squads as we hunt down the carriers?

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Ok I believe you now.  But The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is still a Communist hoax.

>>86

Huh? I think you should re-read what I wrote. Let this be understood: The reason eugenics isn't a viable solution for disparity in IQ is because Intelligence isn't fundamentally genetic. Any arguments for completely genetic solutions is inherantly wrong because it doesn't address the factor that we know definately has an effect on intelligence: Enviornment.

Yet, in the realm of this discussion, I think it [eugenics] is a reasonable approach to the issue. It's the wrong approach, in my view (for more reasons than listed above) but it is still reasonable. In other words: It's perfectly fine by me if he thinks the research could be used to eugenics.

The eugenics guy is not the reason I'm leaving the debate.

However, when dealing with people like >>80 (NOT the eugenics guy). There's no reason to believe that >>80 is producing an argument that's any different from scientifically justified genocide or seperatism. He'd feel the way he does about blacks with or without the data. Science is neutral, yes. But men aren't. And just because a man is a scientist doesn't make him any less likely to be susceptible to the human condition.

There is a part of your post that irks me, though.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where I am "getting the bad end of the debate"?

RE: From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

Read and Respond: You seem to think that study means something and I won't take that away from you, but this is what South Amerindians looks like:

www.minelinks.com/worker/jungle_people44.jpg

The humans who are the fatherest from apes are still savages, so what is your point? Do you think truth will ever make your hatred acceptable?[/i]

So what if Nigerians are closer to apes? They're still human. So what does it have to human intelligence? "Whites" are closer to apes an South Amerindians and white colonized South America. The only way that data can be relevant if you're making an argument for the inhumanity of nigerians.

I don't feel that I should have to sit here and be called "boy" and "chimp". It's funny how when I was using character attacks it was such a big fuckin' deal. But when someone else does it...it's seems to be fairplay. This isn't a debate- this a hate convention. And I want no part of it.

>>88 But when someone else does it...it's seems to be fairplay.

You saw me critisize someone who did that.

>> So what if Nigerians are closer to apes?
I feel like I should respond to this.  Not to you, anti-chan, but to the guy who wrote the what you were responding to.

Genetic similarities don't neccesarily mean that the creature which will be coded by the genes will be more similar to one that doesn't have as many in common.  To act like just because there are more genes in common with x ancestor doesn't mean that they will be more like them.  To assume that they do just reveals a basic misunderstanding of what genetics is and does.

Genes can only be quantified by the results they give, not by an analysis of their structure (yet).  This is because genes don't progress down a set track towards higher evolution like some people think; they can move backwards and forwards.  The only way to decide whether a gene is passed on or not is if the donor survives to pass it.  Sometimes this can come down to pure chance.  Sometimes, maybe, there is little need for a human to be able to think and plan, and maybe evolution selects for individuals who use less energy to power the brain (just an aside here, the brain, at only 1% of human body mass, eats up 30% of its energy).

Your argument is fallacious.

>>89

Yeah, but you didn't criticize >>80. That's neither here nor there though, he would've continued down that path with criticism of it or not. It's part of who he is (for now).

>>90 Genes can only be quantified by the results they give

Results such as Africa, Haiti, and Detroit.

>>90  Sometimes, maybe, there is little need for a human to be able to think and plan, and maybe evolution selects for individuals who use less energy to power the brain

Excellent.  You just explained groid genes.  However, an explanation is not an excuse.

Non-genocidal racists win once again. The liberals are just going to have to acknowledge the facts or this will continue to be boring. I'll give them a kick start.

White nationalism isn't the answer, but eugenics. Since jews and mongoloids are more intelligent they should be the future along with whatever intelligent caucasoids and negroids have gifts worth passing on to future generations. We should spread liberal ideals to eliminate notions of religion and nationality to prevent multi-cultural societies from being divided and see everyone in the world as part of our nation rather than just everyone on the same continent or small tract of land divided by imaginary lines.

Would someone explain A) why people bothering with anti-chan, who is undoubtably the most ignorant sack of shit I've ever seen in my entire life, this coming from a person whose upbringing was in a highly radicalised bible-thumping Carolina town, and B) why not just his name but his entire IP range wasn't banned. Really, 1300 posts across multiple threads of this meaningless bullshit? No wonder America is so backwards. It's like a one-upmanship contest of who can be the bigger retarded asshole.

>>94

Oh sod off, you inferior miserable pile of fuck waste. If your upbring was in a highly radicalised bible-thumping Carolina town- of course you're going to consider me ignorant.
America is backwards because you're backwards. If this was a contest to see who can be the bigger brain damaged shitstick then your faggity ass just came in and made a clean sweep of things.

Congrats!

U WIN.

>>93
I must respectfully disagree.  If you take the long view and look at history, you will see that multiculturalism has never worked anywhere, and that any society that has attempted to embrace it, from ancient Rome to the Weimar Republic to our own, has doomed itself.

No culture can long endure--and I mean that I am taking the long view here--unless it is rooted in blood and soil.  Patriotism must come not only from the head but from the heart, or it cannot endure--and a culture made up of people who do not believe it and themselves to be just a little better than the next with near unanimity is already dead, rotting, and ripe for conquest by a more vigorous people.

>>96
So you're saying that when western civilization collapses, the libertarians will take over?

FUCK NO!

>>96

"A more vigorous people?" Ok, well...as prone to turmoil as it may seem, there has been nothing more "vigorous" than a mulit-cultural society. It doesn't only put those seperate cultures and races to the test- but all of humanity.

I mean let's be serious here for second. The most dominant civilizations on the face of the earth have been at their core multi-cultural or at least leaned towards multi-culturalism in some regard. From an exchange of diseases and body fluids to an exchange of ideals. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.

You've somehow convinced yourself that yours is the historic longview when it obviously isn't. Blood and soil is matter of perspective. Your ideal of patriotism became banal and passe the moment other cultures and other races decided to start fucking.

Synchronicity turns mono-anything on it's head. We're moving away from nationalism, conservativism, isolationism and business as usual. The "father knows best, family first" model of society over time has proven less and less effective against other cultures who can not only withstand the winds of change- but effectively become the wind of change.

>>98 "A more vigorous people?" Ok, well...as prone to turmoil as it may seem, there has been nothing more "vigorous" than a mulit-cultural society. It doesn't only put those seperate cultures and races to the test- but all of humanity.

Not true.  Multi-culturalism isn't a way to unify and strengthen groups of people; it's a way to control those who you have conquered.  For example, the persians (who I think you're referring to) only allowed people to keep their traditions in order to keep them from revolting.  Later on, Xerxes slowly phased all that out after the people had been so long under persian rule that they didn't really have the dedication to the old traditions of their parents. 

Besides that, one of the most vigorous societies in history, the Romans, was anything but multi-cultural. 

Anyway, multiculturalism, seems to me, to be a method of monogamization and control.  I agree that "Synchronicity turns mono-anything on it's head."  But your philosophy doesn't lead to that.

100get

>>99
Besides, Islam is a form of multiculuralism.

>>98 here has been nothing more "vigorous" than a mulit-cultural society.

"Multi-cultural society" is an oxymoron, but leaving that aside,how vigorous was Rome in 450 CE?  How vigorous was Yugoslavia in 1995?

It didn't work.  It doesn't work.  It has never worked anywhere.

>>99 We're moving away from nationalism, conservativism, isolationism and business as usual.

Yeah, that's what they were saying in Rome about seventeen centuries ago.  How'd that work out for them?  How is the Empire these days?

In the long run, anything BUT blood-and-soil nationalism as a basis for a culture is doomed to failure.  Look to China and Japan for the model of cultures that endure in the long term:  cultures where the autocthones know who they are, what they are, where they came from, and where they belong.

>>96
I must differ strongly, sir. The Roman empire existed due to it's ability to bridge divides and a form of multi-culturalism aided this. The Roman culture was applied to subjugated cultures and the culture soaked up the best of that culture, called it Roman and applied it another part of the empire. The result was an extinction of cultural inferiorities and a better spread and propogation of cultural superiorities. The roman empire fell because it's central government fell to tyranny, like China the Roman empire stagnated and oppressed until outsiders who cared less about absolute power enough to try out new ideas concerning how to spill your enemy's brains over the mud managed to gain military superiority. The difference being the outsiders were not unified and divided the roman empire instead of unifying it under new leadership. The 8th century Jihad unified a very large area of land and millions of people, ending the dark age europe was still in. The British colonisation of India was succesful due to the fact that the British were a unifying force, many Indian warlords were simply bribed into British rule because the velvet glove of trade is preferable to the iron fist of the British navy and the allies it armed. Every nation and stable portion of the planet has occurred when people are brought together and cooperate. Humans are not plants, we are not rooted in soil.

We are migratory and do pretty much everything in teams, but most of all we are sentient intelligent human beings who are not tied down to nature in the way other animals are. If we are going to quibble over how we feel about something, instead of going to work tommorrow we should stay up till 2 in the morning, wake up at 2 in the evenning, then go out and rape, steal and generally act like animals. The benefits of unification and openness exceed how angry it might make you to see a black face every so often. The multi-culturalism I am plying is not like the liberal multi-culturalism, there would be no affirmative action or associations for the advancement of a race, whether they are a minority or not. Everything will be done on an individual basis and people would be encouraged not to try new things for the sake of them being different but for the sake of them being better. If race mixing or allowing the mentally disabled to have children is proven to be detrimental then it won't be done, if black women aren't beautiful then they won't find their way onto billboards very often, if white men are not the best athletes or the most intelligent they won't find themselves as hollywood action heroes much and criticism to any idea that is widely accepted will be encouraged to ensure it is the right idea.

The result will be multi-culturalism done properly, with nothing that can be rationally disagreed with. Eventually the society will improve itself through eugenics and only the best ideas will still be in use, not held onto by crazed fanatics who are holding onto their ideas because they are bombarded with legitimate criticism which can only mean there is a conspiracy to get rid of it and they must hold on to defeat the evil empire, or whatever.

>>103

Outside of the Eugenics stuff, I concur wholeheartedly. Wyatt doesn't seem to have alot of knowledge when it comes to history. He ignores the real problems that often brought about the collapse of many mulicultural societies. It's like when people point to China as to why communism would be bad; as China is a very poor example of perfect communism.

If multiculturism is a form of control then so be it. We've gone past nationalism etc. Technology has made globalization a definate possibility and by all rights a *better* possibility. Going back to "same color teams" is no longer an option. The way I see it you've either got Libertarianism, Anarchy or some new form of socialised democracy as your choices.

Also: Using China and Japan as examples of "stuff that works" is meaningless in context to places like the United States, Canada and modern Europe. China and Japan rely heavily on the multicultural superpowers economically, socially and soon: Culturally.

When I think of China and Japan, I see two places that are are already apart of a bigger multicultural picture- whether you (or they) like it not.

As for Eugenics: It's all good to talk about this for now. But we shouldn't fuck around with eugenics until we understand the human brain a bit more. Study with the brain is at it's beginning as anyone will tell you.

We should give it a couple of hundred years, I think. We shouldn't jump into something that's going basically change what it means to be human. And we should definately root out and confront people like Wyatt who would use Eugenics selfishly.

>> The result will be multi-culturalism done properly, with nothing that can be rationally disagreed with.

This is the part that scares me the most.  The message is quite subtle, but it's there.  What you're saying is that everyone should agree with you, and that if they don't, they're wrong.

Why is disagreement a bad thing?  Why must everyone follow your evangelical ideal of truth?  What's more, why do you want such an incredible shining unified society?  What will it accomplish?  Peace?

There's a reason why we have genetic diversity, and it's analogus to why we should have cultural diversity.

In a genetic monoculture, every immune system functions exactly the same way.  This way, if an antigen finds a way to exploit a weakness in one immune system, it has effectively found the way to exploit the immune system in every individual.  This can be seen right now with the banana crop.  There's a reason why bannas, at 50 or so cents or so a pound now, will go up to at least 1.50/lb by 2009. 

For human societies, it takes a little doing, but "cultural-monoculutre" can be viewed in parallel with genetic monoculure.  Without diverse viewpoints, you can't fully say that you've looked at every angle on a situation.  It's been proven, for instance, that asians tend to see the whole picture of something, while westerners tend to zero in on that which has the greatest results.  If you try to zero out all differences, humanity can't take those diverse evolutionary paths.  They can't look at problems from multiple angles, just the single viewpoint you've prescribed.  The "correct" viewpoint.  The one you CAN'T DISAGREE WITH.

And if you haven't noticed something, all those great multicultural empires DID eventually, in the end, collapse, and take with them all their cultural heritage.  China and Japan have existed since prehistory.

Hey, maybe I can't write like a third year college doucher who's discovered the wonders of socialism.

I don't know...  The rhetoric of >>98 and >>96 just sound so much like the bad kind of evangelical Islam, and Communism.  The kind that doesn't tolerate rivals.

I can't put my finger on it yet...  But you just sound so dangerous, because your end results sound pretty good, especially if you're coming from a poor background in the first place. 

I'd rather have a background, and a heritage, somewhere I can point to that I "come from" than to be exactly the same as every other person on the planet.  Most importantly, I can consider other ways of life without immediately thinking one or the other is superior.

>>106 I don't know...  The rhetoric of >>104 and >>105 just sound so much like the bad kind of evangelical Islam, and Communism.  The kind that doesn't tolerate rivals.

fixed.

Sorry about that.  To make it clear, I'm anti-multicultural.

All Civilizations fall, fail or deminish at some point. That's just what happens. The fact is though- the most powerful were multi-cultural.

We are fastly approaching a breaking point where "heritage" is meaningless- as it should be. It breeds the US or THEM menality. Whatever comes out the one world mentality will an improvement no matter what the incarnation. It will be something that we've never tried before.

>>108
shure. britain was so mutlicultural amirite?

>>108 Whatever comes out the one world mentality will an improvement no matter what the incarnation.

Oh yeah, so if the institute a policy of breeding with squid to try and breed a population of mutant squid-men, that'll be an improvement? 

Kind of showing how you make blanket statements for hypotheiticals in support of your position.

>>108
No.  They were the most powerful because they sought to conquer others.  When you conquer others, you try to take them into yourself, thus, multiculturalism.  Nonetheless, was that neccesarily the best thing for all the constituent populations?

And which civilizations still exist to this day? 

>> It breeds the US or THEM menality.
Just because someone is black or asian doesn't mean that I hate them.  I don't have to be exactly the same as everyone else in order to not want to bash their heads open.  You give humanity too little credit.

>>the most powerful were multi-cultural.
This is another thing that bothers me a little bit.  You judge what kind of society you'd like to live in by how powerful the civilization it represented was.  This, combined with the fact that you think everyone wants to kill everyone who isn't like them...  Do you want to conquer the world?  Or are you just one of those little inferiority complex people who ALWAYS has to be on the winning side, and you see absolute unification as the only means?

I was under the assumption that homogenous populations are stronger. They have less internal conflict.

>>112 I was under the assumption that homogenous populations are stronger. They have less internal conflict.

Stronger how?  You have to make things like this clear.  Do you mean culturally, or geo-politically (definately not true if you look at the US), economically, or what? 

I have been reading this thread, and up until around >>98 or so that I was staunchly against A. Wyatt Mann.  I now feel the need to point out, as a staunch liberal and advocate of world peace, that simply erasing all differences between people is a cop-out.  Even if everyone in the world was the same, people would still find things to make war over, be it political orientation or even geographic location.  You fail to address the real problem of the human condition.

What really needs to be done is this:  we have to develop morally such that we won't feel the need to fight anyone with differences from us, that the "Them" in the "Us and Them" view of humanity isn't automatically a threat.  We need to develop a culture that doesn't seek to dissolve differences, but embrace them.

>>114
I'm best described as a libertarian and I, for the most part, agree.  Even though I believe that having a "home" culture is a good thing.

You want to know what I think happened in this thread?  I bet Anti-Chan summoned some of his professor friends to help him out.  I think that's where all these globalism people came from.  I don't have any evidence to back this up, it's just a feeling. 

>>116

LOL and this is why you seem so fucking idiotic. Read this statement.

"The result will be multi-culturalism done properly, with nothing that can be rationally disagreed with."

This statement alone made by "nice-racist" is the most solid and untouchable statement made in the entire fucking arguement.

Nothing that can be RATIONALLY disagreed with. "Feelings" don't make for good arguments. Who cares if you "feel" something is wrong? What good is your feeling if your way is totally shitty and doesn't work?

My argument against Eugenics is based on the fact that there are human condition issues and issues of actual knowledge to take into account. I don't want guys like Wyatt using Eugenics to continue some racial heirarchy. And I don't want guys like "nice racist" to jump into Eugenics without understanding that Brain study is in it's infant stages. We're talking about changing fundamentally what it'll mean to be human. It's a huge risk.

>>109

It was. Read your history. The idea of "white blood" or "british blood" is really represented by values and similar skin tone. Surface shit. Do you really think Gingers were considered the same as Aryans with blue eyes and blonde hair? Get real.

>>111

Maybe the world needs to be conquered. Has that ever occured to you? I prefer that we all conquered it together while we have the chance. All your fears about multi-culturalism involve the examples of multi-culturalism that we're trying to stray away from.

>>114 we have to develop morally such that we won't feel the need to fight anyone with differences from us, that the "Them" in the "Us and Them" view of humanity isn't automatically a threat.

History is littered with the bones of cultures that tried to make that choice.  It amounts to racial and cultural suicide.  It is Darwinian.

>>118

History is also litter with the bones of cultures that didn't try to make that choice. What is your fucking point? What is it going to take for you acknowledge that the rules have changed?

>>117 Maybe the world needs to be conquered. Has that ever occured to you? I prefer that we all conquered it together while we have the chance.
Eh, no.  So far your entire argument has been nothing but trying to replace one person's culture with your "superior" one.  But how can you truly evaluate someone's culture unless you've lived in it?  And how can anyone trust you not to be biased toward your own culture?

And you still haven't addressed the issues >>114 brought up.  Your "movement" as it were won't actually solve anything.  People will still find reasons to fight each other, even if you bleach them to the point that they're all the same; there will still be competing interests, and there will still be war.

In the end, all your movement amounts to is a desire for world control.

>>120
To add to this, your reasons for even wanting this unified society are fallacious in the first place.  You always point out how "vigorous" or "powerful" multi-cultural societies are, yet does this constitute a pleasant experience in all the underlying cultures?  The Persians were highly successful empire builders, and yet I wouldn't want to live under their rule anymore than I'd want to live in Saudi Arabia right now. 

To address the "Nothing we say can logically be disagreed with," point, what the fuck are you on?  Even the most logical and rational people in the world, scientists, disagree at almost every turn, and what's more, this is constructive!  The empirical world doesn't care for the whims of man, to impose what he believes rational on it.  This is why it takes so many scientists to figure out the truth; many of them are wrong, one or two are right, and when they are proven that way, everyone (at least eventually) abandons their wrong paths and follows with the right ones.

But Science under your rule would more resemble Lysenkoism than science itself; rules chosen before being proven, and anyone who shows a dissenting view would be terminated for being wrong.

Hey, maybe you'll stop clitorectomys and fucking virgins to get rid of aids, but really, that shit'll stop eventually anyway.

To reenumerate my points, your movement:

-> Is biased at best
-> Solves nothing
-> Eliminates disagreement as an acceptable state (though disagreement has been shown to be positive)

I think I may have missed one, but that's basically it.

oh yeah

-> Makes no sense on an individual level.  (Why do you want to live in a "Powerful" civilization?  Why not a "comfortable" or even, "enjoyable" one?)

>>117 It was. Read your history. The idea of "white blood" or "british blood" is really represented by values and similar skin tone. Surface shit. Do you really think Gingers were considered the same as Aryans with blue eyes and blonde hair? Get real.

You're mistaking biological diversity for cultural diversity. 

CALLING ALL IN TRANSIT
CALLING ALL IN TRANSIT
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO FREE EUROPE

>>121

It doesn't eliminate all disagreement, just disagreement that isn't based on rationale, facts, absolute truth, etc. Just "feeling" something is wrong isn't going to fucking cut it.

>>120

Stop jumping to conclusions. The shit is annoying. We're not talking about replacing entire cultures. We're talking about a world synergy that is already taking place.

>>121

If your culture is outdated and inferior, then it's inferior. For some reason it's ok to address the possibly that, for instance, fundamental islamo culture is inferior to our modern culture...but when we start talking about possible inferiorites of cultures that hit close to your home- you can't take it and start shouting about what we may or may not think is inferior.

What does and doesn't work will be made obvious.

Why do you insist on arguing against the type of multi-cultural society that we oppose is beyond me. You're arguing past the debate into your own personal beliefs on multi-culturalism. We're not talking about that multi-culturism. We're talking about one that works.

"You're just trying to rule the world" isn't a rational response. Again, I ask: "So what if we are? What if we're right and you're wrong, huh? What then?"

>>127 [i]For some reason it's ok to address the possibly that, for instance, fundamental islamo culture is inferior to our modern culture...but when we start talking about possible inferiorites of cultures that hit close to your home- you can't take it and start shouting about what we may or may not think is inferior. [i]
Yes, islamo culture is inferior.  IT's true.  But that's only my opinion.  I can't decide what's right for a billion people any more than you can.  What makes this bearable is that they're slowly breaking out of it; just like we slowly broke out of our own cultural morass earlier.  As society develops, it tends to move towards greater human rights etc...  If they catch up to us or surpass us (which is possible, considering how history has tended to unfold E.G. randomly) they won't be any less Islamic, they won't neccesarily have taken our views into their culture.  They'll still have a valuable varied outlook on life.



What does and doesn't work will be made obvious.
Then let natural processes evolve for it.  My problem isn't with finding a system that works; it's with you deciding that you know what's best for all humanity.  No one should have the authority to make that decision because people are inherently biased.

>> We're talking about one that works.
Uh, OK, and this is any more proven then say, COMMUNISM was in the 1950s? 

>>  Why do you insist on arguing against the type of multi-cultural society that we oppose is beyond me.

You oppose all differences.  You want all people to be the same.  I don't see how that's any different from the multi-culturalism I'm talking about.

>> "So what if we are? What if we're right and you're wrong, huh? What then?"

This sounds like an argument a freshman in highschool would make.  You're acting as if there's one and only one solution to all the world's problems.  Maybe your solution will work, maybe it won't.  My bet is on the latter, because you refuse to take into account it's the differences between individuals and their backgrounds that enrich humanity, that give rise to the hybrid vigor of multiculturalism.  When you actively seek to cancel that out, you have monoculture, which as I've explained, is a bad thing.


>> "We're talking about a world synergy that is already taking place. "

If it's happening like this, and it isn't a movement of kooks, it's very different from what you're describing.  People still retain their own identity while taking in the ideas of other cultures.  The understand who they are and where they come from, while taking a practical approach and doing what works in other countries for their infrastructure etc...  They don't want to join some mass collective, because they still have some loyalty to their nation, or group.  We need those barriers to prevent use from becoming a monoculture, like I've said is a bad thing earlier.


You honestly, have failed to address almost every major point I've made; everything you write seems to be this cultist diatribe prefabricated in some brainwashing facility.  You haven't addressed my point about how you want to live in "powerful" societies regardless of living conditions, you haven't addressed the point about how it doesn't address the fundamental problem of human nature (E.G., we'll still fight).  

What this really seems to me to be is the arguments of people who have come from some of those "inferior" cultures.  They have gone to a western university, and just like the proletariats who fomented the communist revolution, they see what we have.  And they want it.  Rather than trying to build it themselves, they say "Give me yours." 

The one thing conservatwits don't seem to notice is yes, Islamic culture does work for a billion or so people. Simply because we do not face the same problems they do, we consider it inferior. Why? I would adore the opportunity to smack down all of America's uppity bitches without being hauled into court. But they do face the problem of not having religious freedom. So, you see, we'll never see eye to eye because their culture erradicates entirely problems ours has. No common ground. Also, unlike the apes, their culture retains a small inkling of math and science, remnants of their middle age legacy, so in the event they get a caliph or mullah who actually cares about their people and their being left behind in the technological race, they can explode from third to first world easily. The only thing keeping them down is a culture that derides pride in one's self, in the way the Puritans do.Try teaching the southern and western Africans the "white man's sciences." It just won't work.

>>128 We're not talking about that multi-culturism. We're talking about one that works.

It's never worked in all of recorded history, anywhere.

>>122 Why do you want to live in a "Powerful" civilization?  Why not a "comfortable" or even, "enjoyable" one?

Powerful cultures ARE comfortable and enjoyable.  If you doubt this, look around the Turd World.

The west's cultural superiority is entirely due to it's ability to accept criticism. Saying other cultures that execute or hurt people who disagree with them are inferior is not avoiding criticism, but criticism itself.

If there are any westerners who avoid criticism, then they are assholes, but they are very few in number and the act of criticism is not the act of avoiding criticism.

>>130

Just keep telling you're self that. PROTIP: You're living in one now.

Multi-culturalism has many good and many bad points, what we need to do is only allow the good bits and not let malicious people mix them up with the bad bits so they can inject bad into our culture. This can be done through criticism, which is why the west is superior as it allows criticism.

So by all means criticise multi-culturalism. Especially the fact that other cultures hate criticism, like those muslims, their culture is inferior as they do not accept criticism so bad people can inject bad ideas into their culture and kill anyone who doesn't like it.

>>133 You're living in one now.

I am aware.  And it doesn't work:

http://niggermania.com/niggerama/niggerama1/17468.jpg

I give the current order one more generation, maybe a bit longer, before the US, and possibly all of the large nations of the West, fall apart Yugoslavian-fashion and the race war that has been going on for forty years comes out into the open and the bloodletting begins in earnest.

>For god's sake, millions of jews died at the hands of "whitey" back in the 1940's

World jewish population in 1930 = 15 million people world wide.
in 1950 it was still around 15 million jews world wide.
Today the total jewish population 13 million.
Oh noes 1980's hololcaust

>>135

LOL Okay there, my fatalist friend. Not everyone is as warmongering as you.

>>135
Will Tricknology become a mainstream religion then?

>>138

Oh noes! The white man's tricknology!

>>138
sho
only a nigga with soul can say it like it is, dam whitey don't know shit, what has science ever done that us bros can't?

>>137
Because this is a thread on jews...for awhile there I thought that said "fagalist" and wondered why we were talking about circumcised gays.

>>141

This thread is not about Jews. It's about white people. Read the thread. Read Bob's Mantra.

>>142

I suspect that Jews will be assimilated into the white people just like the irish and the scotts were. Maybe they already have.

>>143

I don't see any reason to make this thread about the Jews, but Jews and white people aren't the same. Many Jews aren't ethnically Jewish, but Jew is a very confusing term and generally the rabbis like it this way. Basically, Judaism and Jewish culture is religious AND ethnic. It's a tribal religion. In many ways, it's a very developed form of extremely primitive culture. There is a race, the Jews. There is also the religion, the Jews. All the religion, however, serves the interest of the race. Someone with a Jewish mother is automatically Jew the race and unoffically inducted into Jew the religion. The religion is a crucial part of their heritage, and it has greatly influenced them. Judaism, and Jewish culture in general, is basically designed around who can come up with the best justification for the actions they feel like taking.

Truly idealistic Jews get the short end of the stick.

Jews don't assimilate. Jews have been around white people for two millenia. Some Jews have white blood, but it really doesn't matter. A great majority of them are actually almost totally semetic. How is this possible after living with white people for two millenia? 1. Their religion 2. Their xenophobia 3. Their supremacist ideology and mindset 4. Their disdain for ALL non-Jews 5. Their strong in-group loyalty 6. Their preference for charismatic leaders over reason

Do some research on the nastier parts of the talmud, http://www.come-and-hear.com/ is a good place to start.

If a Jew really wants to stop being a Jew, then I'm sure they could get into the white, or any other one, population. But, you have to keep in mind that many Jews believe that 1. They are chosen ones 2. The success of old-testament derived religions is a validation of their beliefs (when ironically THEY are as much a derived belief as Christianity, for instance) 3. The Jews are persecuted whereever they go and other Jews are the only people they can count on

(3. Is just one of the many examples of their primitive and backwards immaturity as a people.)

Some people will convert, but most will not. Most Jews simply don't have the IQ to step out of the trap of Jewish race and Judaism, to realize the nature of the trap. Most of the ones that DO, will still want the benefits of being Jewish, so they won't convert either.

Some famous Jew (can't remember his name) once remarked that after a couple of thousand years of being disliked, they must be doing something wrong. Well, Jews just seem to get more and more immature as a people all the time. They can't let go of their paranoia, supremacism, and fear of the unknown or uncontrollable. Oh the fond memories, listening to some guy on Aish.com talk about how the whole word hates the Jews, like those two 'evil' harvard professors that said that Jewish interest and Israel through AIPAC control the foreign policy of the United States.

I grew up in a non-observant Jewish household and I'm part white. I firmly oppose Jews whereever they go. Some of the pure insanity I have to deal with from my more observant relatives just blew my mind. Look, there are plenty out there that are some sort of supremacist. Heck, to be quite honest, being a supremacist isn't that bad of a thing if they aren't paranoid. I'm not bothered by somebody thinking they are better than me. Let em', if it makes them feel good more power to them. But, all of the Jewish supremacists I have met, and met personally, are freaking paranoid. They spend ALL day blaming everybody else for their problems, and I've heard a couple talk about how everbody hates the jews and that there 'is something wrong with the world and we've got to change it.' Look, when somebody says something like that, it's a declaration of control. Everybody else is wrong, and they are right. And, because they THINK that they are right, they can go dictating to everybody else what they should do. It's a statement of world control. Most Jews I have the absolute wierdest mindset. The accept emotionally their own superiority and the justification for any horrible action based on that feeling of superiority. They vehemently deny being control-minded supremacists and then spend all their time trying to figure out how to control other people based on their supremacist ideology or justifying that supremacism and control. Suddenly, famous people that absolutely LOATHED the Jews, are now Jews or practically Jewish, in order to justify their mindset. To somebody that grew up reading philosophy, it just boggles my mind, the pure hypocrisy. They absolutely have to convince themselves, and here's the evil part, and OTHERS that they are superior to everyone else, and everyone else is absolute evil and trash. Then, they spend the rest of their time moaning about how everybody else it mistreating/controlling and everybody else is evil and supremacist. It doesn't even pop into their head that THEY are the problem. David Duke http://www.davidduke.com/ no doubt is something of a white supremacist. But, he's a white supremacist (and ironically white supremacists have some of the best arguments considering we're sitting in nations using 'the white man's tricknology') in the way that most people are a supremacist for their nation. National supremacists don't use their 'supremacism' to justify conquering the world. They use it to justify the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THEIR NATION. In the same way, most white supremacists use their supremacism to JUSTIFY THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THEIR RACE. David Duke says that all races have a right to their own living space and the right to control their own destiny. Jewish supremacists use their supremacism to JUSTIFY TAKING OVER EVERYTHING THEY DON'T TRUST, WHICH IS EVERYTHING. Of course, they don't SAY it that way, but they say it indirectly; for instance, the little argument:

1.All non-Jews are untrustworthy
2.Jews are unilaterally hated everywhere, and for no good reason, NOT any logical reason. Oh no.
3. The non-Jews aren't even qualified to manage themselves. The Jews should manage them as well, for the good of the Jews and for the good of the non-Jews.
4. In order to control opposition to the Jews, the Jews have to control everything, and I mean EVERYTHING.

Somebody on this forum once said that Jews are a train-wreck waiting to happen. Jews ARE a train-wreck waiting to happen. Jews keep on getting kicked out of countries? Why.

Because They Will Simply Not Leave Anything Alone.

If you have a scab, don't pick at it. Jews live in countries where they are living on the generosity of that people. The Jews have to work up an incredible disdain (moral disdain) and xenophobia of that people in order to STAY Jews and not assimilate. Eventually, these feelings work into the Jews passively, indirectly, and then directly opposing the interests of that people and nation. Then that people and nation get pissed off at them. I don't think that the 'holocaust' is anything but a dramatized figment of Jewish imagination, but one day there is really going to be a holocaust of the Jews. And I mean a complete genocide. And no, it isn't 'everybody elses' fault. It's the fault of the JEWS. It's Jewish nature and culture and habit and religion rolled all into one. Chosing in-group loyalty means that you aren't going to be liked by other peoples. Living in their midst and being loyal to another people is pretty much equivalent to treason. Eventually, after a number of years, the people get fed up with you. Eventually the Jewish dream of 'everybody against the Jews' isn't going to just be a product of their paranoia. It's going to be REAL, and it is going to be the creation of the Jews, and the reasonable reaction of 'everybody else'. 

But, most Jews will cling to it with a religious, yes religious, tenacity. Even most non-observant ones. This stubborn inability to let go of loyalty to Jewish interests is everywhere in Jewish life. A Jewish multiculturalist wants multiculturalism for everywhere, but Israel. A Jewish communist wants a communism controled by the Jews, and is ok with inciting class warfare to 'end' class warfare between everybody BUT the Jews.

I'm off the Jewish mobile nuthouse. Thank goodness for me. I'm part of the smart and wise minority. The rest can continue their lemming-like trek off the cliff.

>>144
Oh come on...  Your race can't be all that bad, can they? (I'm a cracker). 

That post was a waste of fucking time.

When it comes to race- you supremacist, genocidist and seperatists might as well pack it in. There's far too little space on this planet to even entertain the idea of seperating all the races. Some people will always be very comfortable with fucking others of a different race; it happens out of social re-enforced taboo, it happens out of woman's defiance to allow men within their race the monopoly on their bodies and you know what? One day a black and a chinese or a mexican and a white or a japanese and a white just might fall in love. That's right I said it: Love. Trite, cheesy, cliche'? Yes, even a little gay. But LOVE and LUST persists againsts all of group-think and pathetic notions of "racial survival". We are a species of Hearts AND Minds.

You want to know why multiculturalism will reign supreme?

CHOICE.

You can even remove the taboo of fucking other people to try and curb the mystery of mating with another race- but when there's no taboo people are STILL going to do out of CHOICE and CHOICE ALONE.

People are going to pretty much do whatever the fuck they want to do either because everybody is doing it- or some bitter asshole is telling them not to. The human species looks like one that is moving rapidly away from constriction and the concept of "No." Everything is possible because we are everything. 

The Pack Mentality is breaks down the more human we become.

>>146

You're not a freaking multiculturalist. You're a freaking NO culturalist. In order to have a culture, you have to HAVE a group identity. Even when you want to be a no-culturalist like you, you're really trying to be a MONOculturalist where everybody is a NOculturalist.

One thing you've forgotten is that the pack mentality, the society, is the very BASIS of human behavior. Human beings are social animals, and social animals are PACK animals. If you aren't a pack animal, you're can't possibly BE human.

Pack mentality is one of the foundations of BEING human.

>>146
The jews did it.

>>146
LOLOCAUST PORK PORK PORK PORK PORK PORK PORK

>>149
Yes, eat pork jewboy.

>>150
>>149
>>148

Here is the vicious irony. Only Jews would be interested in posting something like that.

>>147

Uhyeah...that's not going to stick sorry. I'm an ALL culturalist, in that it's very plain to see that in it's entire context a majority of the human culture remains more or less the same. There are differences that come up, but how different are they really? And it is impossible for cultures to intermingle and exchange like sperm and egg? The answer is NO.

The rest of your post is basically you shouting the opposing view point. Let me put it in different terms then: In order to get to the post-human stage of evolution Pack mentality will be seen for what it is- an attack on the individual. Pack mentality breaks down the more we stray that past that idea of these animalistic qualites as a part of being human.

>>128

I refer to address your so called "major points" because you're purposely trying to reframe my argument and thus: the debate itself. I am not anti-differences and any arugments against me in the vien of me being anti-difference is wrong. It's that simple.

>>153


refer = refuse*

And has it possibly crossed your mind that we are already apart of a bigger all-encompassing "human culture"?

>>154

in other words: we are already living in a mono-culture and have been for quite sometime

Pack mentality isn't an assault on the individual, as long as they are smart and understand what they're doing.  Pack mentality is bad when people are stupid enough to get riled up over things al la islam. 

Without this pack mentality, this ability to stick together, to belong somewhere, most humans, rather than standing up and trying to defend the society they're a part of, just scatter when things go wrong. This could mean an end to society as we know it; one of people who just wander around.

All this globalism stuff, the world as a village, sounds more like a method of control than anything else.  When you have a monoculture like that, who ever controls the main culture controls the world.  Then, we'll not have segmented packs where if something goes wrong in one it's still possible to find others that are willing to accept outsiders where things haven't gone quite so awry, we'll have global catastrophe.

However, this won't happen, because the true future is a cross between the two ideologies; people will bring values that work for other people into their culture, but without neccesarily destroying their own.  And if they don't have one to start with, they'll probably form their own, based on membership with a community. 

I'm not neccesarily for keeping all ancient groups intact, don't get me wrong, but one thing I'm DEFINATELY not for is a global monoculture.

>>155
Not neccesarily.  We don't listen to what the French prime minister says any more than they listen to us.  If they DID, then we'd have problems.  Orwellian type problems. 

But that's just not feasible.

>>157

You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about.

Look, here is something that white people seem to have forgotten. Being part of a pack gives you special rights within that pack. In fact, it gives you rights to members of that pack that members of OTHER packs don't have. This is not evil, it's simply how groups work.

I'm a member of my family. You aren't. I have special rights within my family afforded to me by family members that you don't have.

I'm also a member of the white race. As a member of the white race, I have rights given to me by members of the white race that members not of the white race don't have.

I'm not a member of the japanese race. Not being a member of the japanese race, I'm not given special rights based on membership of the japanese race provided by members of the japanese race.

I'm not a member of the Canadian nationality. Not being a member of the canadian nationality, I don't have special rights based on membership in the Canadian nationality afforded by members of the Canadian nationality.

I'm not a member of your family. Not being a member of your family, I don't have special rights based on membership in your family.

I'm a member of the human species. Being a member of the human species, I have special rights based on membership in the human species afforded to me by members of the human species.

Ok, we're all human beings. Ok. We're also many other things as well. What crackpot wants to say is that all the group membership except membership in the human race is wrong. It leads to conflict and people getting hurt. What crackpot doesn't also realize it that it leads to love, brotherhood, and comfort as well.

The world is not simple. Being human is not simple. Crackpot wants to simplify everything and say we all bleed red like any other mammal, so we shouldn't have group memberships that get in the way of an expidiently peaceful world.

It's time to grow up. Human life isn't something that likes being simplified. Human beings have bunches of loyalties, and this is the freaking nature of being human. Some loyalties are based on birth, some are based on relation, some are based on ritual, some are based on belief, and some are based on ideology.

We're not JUST part of the human group. We're MORE than just 'humans.' We're also white, asian, British, Chinese, communists, capitalists, seperatists, multiculturalists, invididualists, and collectivists. We're diverse, and the irony about your multiculturalism and multiracialism, is that it leads to MONOculturalism and MONOracialism, and is the penultimate end of diversity.

>>159
Well done.

>>159

Pure crap. Notice how your claim of me supporting "mono-culturalism thru multi-culturalism" ended up at the very end of the post with very little explaination of how I'm doing this.

What you don't understand is that we've operated under those pack rules and thus far the pros (brotherhood, love, comfort) have not outweighed the cons (death, destruction, genocide, conflict).

It's time for *you* to grow up, son.

You're under the deluded impression that multi-culturalism simplifies the human being. As someone else pointed out- all cultures being in close proximity to each other led to MORE conflict- but when it led to brotherhood, comfort and love- it led to the UNIVERSAL concepts of those acts. (Not white brotherhood because of whiteness or black love because of blackness)

If this is what you think being human is, then guess what? What it means to BE human is changing. The old brotherhoods and old aims have been proven as SHALLOW. And the idea that multiculturalism = mono-culturalism is something to say as a fucking cliche' because you're at a lost to indentify the mechanism for which multi bleeds over into mono.

I could go a different route here and say that humans NEED to be unified just like Europe did, just like China, Just like Japan and that every nation/race that has trouble unifying in SOME form- eventually fails.

Instead I will highlight that multiculturalism will only lead to MORE diversity. MORE people speaking different languages and understanding different lifestyles and remaining respectful of them.

Instead of just being "white". People will be spanish speaking white AFRICANS. Or Black Russian Capitalists. The door is completely open for anyone to take part in the myriad of qualities of "humaness".

Who are you to say that an individual should only be one thing (black or white). How do you not see your world view is one that has be adhered to since man began and before evolution is to take place we WILL need to become more complicated and more diverse on INDIVIDUAL levels. This is the type of multiculturalism I'm talking about. The chances of everything just unifying to ONE culture is nil- but then again I ask: If everything did unify into ONE culture what would be the harm? If whites, chinese, blacks or whatever live just fine within the confines of one culture- then why is this not acceptable for all of man?

>>161 If everything did unify into ONE culture what would be the harm?
Destruction of differing worldviews for one.  We'll begin to believe there's only one way things can possibly be, and we'll begin thinking anyone who thinks outside those lines is somehow abnormal, or a heretic.  It's happened before in isolated societies, like europe during the middle ages, and culture stagnated as a result. 

I honestly don't care.  The most nightmareish scenarios of multi-culturalism aren't feasible, and even the most annoying ones are unlikely.  I'll just watch from the sidelines as history unfolds.  I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm basically alone, without any of these loyalties, yet I know that the reason I can be like this is because of the existence of different peoples.  I was able to formulate my own destiny by comparing it to individuals in other groups. 

You can rant on and on about how multiculturalism is the future, but take it from a guy who is basically a poster-child of it; it wouldn't neccesarily be sunshine and daisies like you think it is.

(Just as an aside, not about the pros or cons of MC but of the feasibility of it, the rhetoric about how the days of group loyalties is over is BS.  People will always belong to whatever group they want.  Just saying.)

>>162

I *don't* think it's going to be subshine and daisies. Fuck. Did I even say that? What it will be- is a change. A definate one, the type of changes that puts mankind to the test. This division among the races, racial superiority bullshit hasn't done anything for us for thousands of years. It's time to grow the fuck up, as a species and move past it. 

>>163 hasn't done anything for us for thousands of years.
Uh, didn't it get us america, to the moon, etc... etc.. et...?

Destroys your argument.

>>164

lol America
lol the moon
funny stuff kid

funny

   stuff

>>164 It's time to grow the fuck up, as a species and move past it. 

Yet more failure to understand relativeism.  Just because you think something is an improvement, doesn't mean that it'll neccesarily cause any kind of a good outcome, and labeling it as human society "growing up," is stupid.  As if there was a set path that history had to follow.  Historians, who study the way that things ACTUALLY pan out are often wont to point out how things weren't SUPPOSED to turn out the way they did, that it was filled with coincidences and long shots.  We could have easily turned out in some other way, some totalitarian society ALA china, and worldwide freedom like that enjoyed in countries affected by europe's age of enlightenment would be at best a thing in some dreamer's imagination. 

To assume that one outcome is more "grown up" than another is a pretty immature way of looking at things in and of itself.

>>166

Fails for subjectivity. RELATIVELY, I can turn your argument right back around on you. The fact that you think of my CONSIDERING such an outcome as "immature" is exceptionally immature insofar as I am 100% correct in saying that shattering the barrier of race has never been attempted by man as a species.

No shit, hypothetically, it could be a bad thing. HYPOTHETICALLY, it could've been bad for Einstien to develop the theories he did. (It was AND wasn't) HYPTHETICALLY the human rights and the elimination of a various caste systems could've been a bad thing. (It wasn't) The world is filled with hypotheticals, kid. This is what you don't fucking get.

Your argument is basically: We shouldn't try a global culture because there COULD be conflict, it COULD turn out this way or that. It's so trite that my eyes actually tastes the bile in your words. There's conflict, NOW. And any change for human beings has very rarely led to their complete annihilation.

I'm sorry, but you arugment sounds more like an excuse. One that comes from fear of things that are already happening.

Either that or you're being disagreeable for the sake of it.

>>167
Have you looked at the driving forces in the globalist culture movement lately? I'm nuking all you fuckers if you change everyone into an MTV drone. That shit don't fly with me you fucking racist liberals.

>>154
If I called a norwegian a godless chink taoist I would get my ass rightly kicked, but not because I used such coarse language.
Ditto if I insinuated celts are related to Africans even as far back as the eighth century.
I hate you culture haters so much. Fuck you and fuck your grandpa Goering!

>>168

If everyone isn't an MTV drone now, then everyone won't be an MTV drone later. You're acting like people are going to magically lose the ability to make choices or something. It's idiotic.